Kishore Kumar Jain, v. The Sub-Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.13920 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012

1. Kishore Kumar Jain

2. Ramila Jain ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Sub-Registrar, Periamet, E.V.R.Periyar Road, Chennai - 600 003.

2. The Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, 3, Sydenhams Road, Behind Nehru Stadium, Chennai - 600 003.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the order bearing I No.9/2011 dated 27.12.2011 relating to Document No.P.127/11 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same, direct the first respondent to complete the registration of the Document No.P.127/2011, by issue of Certificate of Registration relating thereto.

For Petitioners :

Mr.V.Sanjeevi For Respondents :

Mr.Richardson Wilson Government Advocate

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order bearing I No.9/2011 dated 27.12.2011 relating to Document No.P.127/11 on the file of the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to complete the registration of the Document No.P.127/2011, by issue of Certificate of Registration relating thereto.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have deposited the title deeds as a security to secure the credit facilities availed by M/s.Khazana Jewellery Private Limited from the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, No.86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001 being the lead Bank of State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Travancore, IDBI Bank, Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India aggregating Rs.440 Crores. All the title deeds are deposited at one Bank only, viz., the State Bank of India as they are lead Bank and other Banks being colenders. The immovable properties situated at Anna Nagar have been registered as equitable mortgage, by way of deposit of title deeds vide Doc.No.2761 of 2011 dated 12.08.2011 as a sigle document.

Likewise, the immovable properties situated at Tirunelveli have been registered as equitable Mortgage, by way deposit of title deeds vide Doc.No.5714/2011 dated 29.08.2011 as a single document. They have registered the same, deposit of title deeds pertaining to the property situated at EVK Sampath Salai at the office of the first respondent for credit facilities to an extent of Rs.180 Crores from the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch as a lead Bank with State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Mysore and the State of Travancore, vide Doc.No.624/2007 dated 14.03.2007. Likewise, the petitioners approached the first respondent to register the deposit of title deeds pertaining to the property situated at EVK Sampath Salai and it has been accepted and treated as pending for clarification vide P.No.127/2011 dated 08.12.

2011 and directed the petitioners to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.1,50,000/- for completing the registration formalities. On receipt of the same, the petitioners submitted their explanation to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 stating that Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act was applicable to the instrument which was presented for the registration and it will have to be considered as executed the one favouring seven Banks and as such, it requires Stamp Duty payable at seven times of the value and required the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- being the loss and Rs.25,000/- towards Penalty.

The impugned order further stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, the appeal is lie before the Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration Department, Santhom, Chennai.

3. On a perusal of the impugned order, admittedly the document which was presented by the petitioners now pending as P.No.127/2011. Therefore, before the registration of the said document, the first respondent cannot invoke the provision under Section 33 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act for recovery of defceit Stamp Duty. The first respondent can impound the instrument as contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the first respondent committed procedural irregularity while passing the impugned the order. The first

respondent ought to have registered the document and directed the petitioners to pay deficit Stamp Duty as contemplated under Section 33 A of the Indian Stamp Act. On the sole ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

4. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 is set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kv To

1. The Sub-Registrar, Periamet, E.V.R.Periyar Road, Chennai - 600 003.

2. The Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, 3, Sydenhams Road, Behind Nehru Stadium, Chennai - 600 003.

+1cc to Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate Sr.No.41036 +1cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.41111 W.P.No.13920 of 2012 GPL (CO) PR (17/09/2021)